This is the third and final of the three GM “mid-sized” cars that R&T tested in 1973, following the Grand Am and Cutlass Salon. Their motivation was to determine just how “European” they actually were in relation to the amrketing claims being made for them. Somewhat curiously, it turned out that the one with the most “European” handling was the one that looked most extremely American, with no outward suggestions at an European pretensions. The new Monte Carlo, with its massive hips and exaggeratedly-long front end was a swaggeringly American as it got, and it sold accordingly well.
But “underneath baroque architecture” there was some serious effort to raise the bar in handling qualities for mainstream American cars, thanks to John DeLorean.
The tested Monte had the optional 245 hp 454 (7.4 L) V8, which unsurprisingly made it the fastest of the three. Acceleration for the 4500 lb coupe was “impressive”. (0-60 in 8.6 sec., 1/4 mile in 16.6 sec. @86mph). What was surprising is that it got the best fuel economy of all three, managing 14.5 mpg. Everything is relative.
The Monte’s styling was obviously highly subjective; R&T called it “outlandish”. Sounds about right. The driver has to strain to see over and around the endless hood and fenders, and the view to the rear sides through the little opera windows was of course lousy. The anti-Mercedes.
The interior was a mixed bag. The instrument panel with optional full “gages” was appreciated, but the absurdly thin “dune buggy design” swivel bucket seats were very much not. I’d forgotten that these swivel seats were totally different than the standard plush seats; what a dumb idea.
The good stuff was hidden out of sight, under those voluptuous front and rear fenders. DeLorean, long an admirer of Mercedes chassis design (remember his swing-axle Tempest?), made an effort to impart some of that Mercedes magic in the Monte’s front suspension, which had to be revised to work with the new standard radials anyway. the goal was better straight-line stability, steering feel, and responsiveness. The key change was 5 degrees of castor in the steering geometry. Normally that would result in excessively heavy steering, but the way around that was easy: make power steering standard!
Steering ratio was reduced, and power assist decreased. Eureka! Better steering feel and handling prowess without any sacrifice in that Jet-Smooth ride! Better late than never.
Spring rates were increased somewhat, a rear anti-roll bar was standard, and perhaps most importantly, shock valving was revised for better wheel control.
In addition to these specific changes, the new front end suspension geometry was designed to yield a relatively softer ride despite stiffer springs, and to be more compliant to road deflections. How does it all work?
The steering was deemed the best ever in a US car, equal to the ZF power steering in the BMW, if not as good as Mercedes’. Light, with a decided on-center feel and some relation to tire force. Downright un-American. Steady state cornering was good, but not exceptional, with the Monte slotting in between the Grand Am and the Cutlass Salon.
R&T felt that “given a wide road..the Monte will hold its own against a Jaguar XJ6 or BMW Bavaria on normal roads. However when the going gets rough, so does the Monte”. The classic American car problem, even if somewhat better than before and others. “It doesn’t float as badly at high speeds or bottom as easily as the GA or Salon, but it still doesn’t approach a European touring sedan in these respects.”
If the Monte’s excessive weight and “outlandish” styling weren’t so overwhelming, it might have had a chance to be even more competitive to European sedans. As it was, it was closer to how R&T felt a car should handle than any big car out of Detroit. “It’s just too bad that size and gimcrackery are still so much a part of the American way”.
I know this generation of Monte Carlo sold very well, but I can’t get over the baroque styling.
Still prefer the fist generation.
Fortunately, the way things were most of the chassis goodness would’ve been available in a Chevelle along with better space utilization – as before, the sedan/wagon/El Camino had a 116″ wheelbase and the Chevelle coupe 112″ with the difference in the back seat area, while the Monte used the 116″ span and the same firewall-to-rear-axle as the regular 2dr, with the difference reapportioned to hood length.
I was wondering about this too. Did the Chevelle Laguna have the same suspension tuning and steering feel, at least as an option? How about lower-end Chevelles? They certainly had much better styling IMO.
Until our expert Vince C. shows up, I’m going to guess that the Chevelle didn’t have the specific changes (caster angle, etc.) that hallmarked this MC setup, because I assume that would have resulted in very heavy steering in a non-PS base car.
The MC came with standard PS, which was pretty much essential for this to work with acceptable steering effort.
The Chevelles and Monte Carlos shared the same suspension parts and chassis design. However, the Monte Carlo had significantly different caster settings. The Monte Carlo was just under 5 degrees of positive caster, while the Chevelles were 1/4″ of negative caster. Chevrolet had the same caster setting for Chevelles with both power steering and manual. However, the thinking at the time was that positive camber would add too much steering effort. The near zero or slightly negative caster settings were pretty common among US cars of this era. That said, the Monte Carlo alignment specs can be used on a Chevelle to get the same positive camber. I know from experience that adding the positive caster to cars from this time has a dramatic positive effect on steering.
I wrote up a bit more history on the 1973 Monte Carlo suspension in this article here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-for-sale/cc-for-sale-1973-chevrolet-monte-carlo-a-curbside-classic-for-christmas/
Me too!! A 70 or 71 for me!!
I realize just about everything Detroit produced in the 70s was…questionable looking, but after GM/Chevrolet (supposedly?) took such pains to make the 1st generation Monte Carlo a near instant classic, this generation looked like they threw the book down the toilet…retrieved the book, then said ” screw it “. If the 2nd generation Monte Carlo were a person, some people would argue that whoever did that ” facelift ” should have been sued for malpractice.
Okay, enough. I actually liked the Buick Regal coupe, and the Pontiac and Oldsmobile ” personal luxury coupes ” were pretty decent. But back then the only reason(s) that I could see for buying the Monte over its sister cars was an absolutely killer deal, or you REALLY wanted/needed the insurance of a (Chevy) dealer on nearly every corner.
Put the Buick body on top of that Chevy chassis? Maybe. But this car? I just don’t see the idea behind it’s looks.
I wonder how many people notice that the suspension was adjusted, not basically changed? Those RWD GM front suspensions were, on paper, as good as it gets. Unequal-length A-arms, coils on the bottom arms, tube shocks inside them, it’s just good. Then you mount them with “American” geometry on big rubber bushings attached to flexible ladder frames and you get “American” handling. The “big” cars had a good rear suspension, too.
You could apply that to just about every American car going back to the mid-late 1930s.
And the frames weren’t all that flexible; increasingly less so, as a flexible frame hinders the effectiveness of a proper suspension. Overall body structure stiffness was consistently improved, especially in the later ’70s and on. It’s quite essential to good handling.
Separate frames have only evolved relative to the time, they are still beams with very little depth being bent and twisted? You are using brute force instead of engineering some depth (such as a unit body) in? And this was 1973. I only mentioned the frame because I think the only full-framed automobile I’ve ever owned was one of these and I thought it twisted. To be polite. But the GM front end has been ignored under plenty of unit bodies, too.
I’m not quite sure what exactly you’re saying. In any case, it’s a fairly complex subject. But here’s the very short story: Modern perimeter frames (and GM’s X-Frame) are quite different than a “ladder frame” as used in trucks, and was once used in passenger cars. A ladder frame does not require additional stiffness from the body to provide adequate stiffness to the combined structure. That’s why a truck frame can any any body mounted to it, or none at all. That was the case with cars that used ladder frames too; think a stripped-down hot rod or such.
But perimeter frames function quite differently; they mostly serve to provide a mounting support for the front and rear suspension engine/transmission, but provide relatively modest amount of actual stiffness to the body structure. That’s all too obvious by looking at a perimeter frame. You can’t exactly make a truck or hot rod without a body using a perimeter frame. It’s totally dependent on the body that’s mounted to it, to create the desired degree of total structure stiffness.
And structural stiffness is the single most important component that allows a well-engineered suspension system to function optimally. This was figured out increasingly during the 50s and 60s, and led to significant changes in the bodies and frames.
In reality, a perimeter BOF car is more akin to a unibody that happens to have two rather modest-sized side rails to connect the front and rear subframes.
We’re long overdue an in-depth post in this subject, but that’s the thumbnail sketch.
Or did I miss your point?
I’m being a lot simpler than you, and I mis-used the word “ladder” (which I understand). Sorry. I meant more like “beam”. I think your “perimeter” is my “evolved relative to the time”. You kick the rails out and drop the passenger compartment between them? Not a ladder, a complex twist of built up beams, but they locate the front and rear suspensions the same, they just take different paths to get there. And they’re rarely more than a foot high, not quite a plane but pretty flat.
Your second section seems to go from the body being load to being structural. I can see that the body could locate the frame rails but does it act as truss and stop the frame from bending down in the middle? That’s your advantage in a unit body, the third dimension? Maybe something to think about it for your post? Thanks for talking.
For my first new car I chose a ‘73 Cougar XR-7 over one of these. Both were within $100 of each other new. The Cougar was stylish, but proved mediocre over the 5 years I owned it. A friend later bought a ‘73 Monte and it was superior in most respects. Always regretted not buying the Monte.
At 4400 pounds, that is even a bit heavier than the same era Impala coupe which was nearly almost 10″ longer but weighs in at 4300 pounds.
The curb weight of a base ’73 Monte Carlo as listed as 3713 lbs. This one was heavily optioned, and maybe they actually weighed it, in which case it wasn’t “curb weight”.
You can’t compare a heavily optioned car with a big block to the base curb weight of a stripper. Apple to oranges.
The GM Colonnades were heavy cars, significantly heavier than say a comparable 1977 B-body. That said, they were still lighter than a comparably equipped 1973-76 B-Body Chevrolet. Like Paul said, you have to compare the same apples to apples for weights. The published “curb weights” don’t always reflect the true weight of a typical variant in the real world though. My ’76 Malibu with a 350 engine, TH350 transmission, which is minimally optioned (no A/C, no power accessories other than P/S and PBs) was weight on a certified scale at just a touch under 4100 lbs.
Is that the same back window as Olds used on the Cutlass Supreme that year? Also it looks like the opera window came out of the same GM parts bin.
I’m not surprised entirely that people panned this car to some degree. However, for those that had the money, and wanted something a little more distinctive than a Chevelle, and felt an Impala was just too plain for them, they spent the money on one of these. I didn’t mind the styling of these Montes, and I would say this is my favourite iteration of all the Monte Carlo attempts. Lots of swooping and distinctive lines, custom grille and beautiful taillights.
An opportunity arose for me to drive one of these, just a few times, and it felt really nice and cushy to drive in traffic. I do remember the steering was a bit firmer than I had expected.
Had I not been a Mopar fan, Chevy may have been my preference at the time.
All of the formal roof two door collonades shared rear, front and door glass however Chevrolet and Pontiac each got exclusive opera windows for their respective models.
Uh-oh, those radial tires were Firestone 500’s. Great steering feel until your tires blow out.
This was one of several GM cars of the ’70s and ’80s that seemed to have a disconnect between what different parts of the design and engineering teams were doing. All that work to make it drive like a German luxury sedan, all for a baroque personal luxury coupe whose buyers were generally fine with traditional American floatmobiles. The 1980 Seville was like that too – finally a state-of-the-art world-class chassis instead of one derived from a lowly Nova, only to saddle it with baroque 1930s styling (rear) and Detroit schmaltz (rest of car) that ensured nobody considering the European luxury cars it was supposed to compete against would buy one.
This car is what think of first when 1970s and Chevrolet are mentioned. I never had the chance to drive one, but the few times when I was a passenger, the doors seemed awful heavy. There was a lot of noise inside the door from parts moving around and they were hard to close securely. I can still hear the (substitute mad magazine noise of your choice, mine is Groonch) as the door moved and the hinges complained. I still wanted one really badly, but by the time I could buy one after I finished school, they were 18 years old and usually trashed.
It surprises me that the 454 was so efficient for the time, but I suppose if it was geared numerically low enough and you stayed out of the secondaries, then it could happen. I might have ordered one with a 2.54:1 gear instead of the 2.73.
Ford and Chrysler was lucky then GM released the mid-size Monte and its siblings for the 1973 model year instead of 1972 as they originally planned, especially in the case of Ford who restyled the mid-size Torino/Montego that year. Imagine what if GM had released its mid-size originally for 1972?
1972 Torino, Gran Torino, & wagon production was 496,645.
1973 Torino, Gran Torino, & wagon production was 435,701.
Considering the “battering ram” bumper restyle; really not a big drop(61,000 units) in 2nd year production. This against the GM onslaught.
At the time these cars came out, I about lived at a Chevy-Cadillac dealership in our small NW PA town. I thought the ’73 was way-more expensive-looking than the previous car (think “Eldo”!) but as usual, with all these years’ hindsight, ‘simple’ ages best and the earlier cars seem less dated in styling.
I do remember these cars driving really nicely, being very quiet and smooth. They cornered better and actually seemed to ride better than the full-size Chevrolet. This is based on us owning a new ’74 Impala and a friend’s parents owning a new ’74 Monte Carlo Landau.
Of the four specialty GM coupes, I liked the Monte’s styling best, then and now, largely due to the full-length wide sill trim and simply-trimmed sides (no chrome hash marks as on the Cutlass Supreme, for example). The hoods on these cars were ridiculous, but at the time drew a ‘wow!’ out of me from inside the car. I’m glad they didn’t choose to slap a hood ornament on it ’til ’77.
I’m surprised the 454 got better MPG than the 350’s in the other cars. I’m also surprised that the suspensions were really different between the Monte, Grand Am, and Cutlass Salon, although apparently the divisions still had some autonomy then.
One thing I didn’t like about my friend’s parents’ ’74 Monte was the bench seat seemed unnaturally reclined, and there was nothing you could do about it.
Sorry, 350 in the Cutlass and 400 in the Grand Am, that is.
One small thing I liked about those Monte’s door panels, were the diagonal map pocket way up high in the panel, at the front of the door.
That curb weight seems awfully high. My ’74 Chevelle (admittedly a small block) had a curb weight of 3918 lbs.
A copy of my comment above:
The curb weight of a base ’73 Monte Carlo as listed as 3713 lbs. This one was heavily optioned, and maybe they actually weighed it, in which case it wasn’t “curb weight”.
You can’t compare a heavily optioned car with a big block to the base curb weight of a stripper. Apple to oranges.
You make absolute sense. I now recall that the power window motors of the day weighed 15 lbs each or thereabouts.
There was a great article, I believe in “Hot Rod” magazine in the 70s in which they took a 472 Coupe DeVille and stripped it down to a powered chassis, cowl, and floor pan and took it to the dragstrip to show the effects of excessive weight.
It’s a fun read, and I found it here:
https://www.cadillacforums.com/threads/hot-rod-magazines-infamous-caddy-hack-article.1103894/
Heck, the radios were absolute monsters. The UM2 AM/FM Pushbutton and 8-Track radio weighed 22 pounds according to page 19 of the vehicle information kit on the ’73 Monte Carlo (available at the GM Heritage website https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits/Monte-Carlo/1973-Chevrolet-Monte-Carlo.pdf)
Having owned and driven many of these Colonnades, I wonder what the weight penalty was for the big block? I owned a couple of 350 4bbl cars, and thought they had plenty of go for the times, a lot better than many cars.
I had a cousin that had the Cutlass with the 455, he attributed some front tire wear and suspension wear to the big block, and thought the 350 a better balanced package.
I was an Oldsmobile snob back in the day, but if I were to pick up another Colonnade, I’d go for the Monte just because of the styling. The subject car is rather perfect with its rally wheels, no vinyl top and buckets. Just needs a passenger side mirror.
Ironically, it was the top trim Cutlass Supreme Brougham that had the most baroque interior of all, the simpler “Chevy” interior looks downright sporty by comparison.
There never was an Olds gen 2 “big block”; the 400/425/455 had a taller deck to accommodate a longer stroke, but that added a negligible amount of weight.
Pontiac V8s were all the same basic block too, until the later 301/256.
Here’s the published weights of the ’73 Monte Carlo with the different engines and transmissions.
Those are not “weights”; they are “performance weights”, meaning that 600lbs has been added.
The difference in weight between a 350 Olds and a 455 Olds was about 60 lbs. Like Paul said, the 455 wasn’t a Big Block in the traditional sense, where the bore spacing was increased for bigger cylinder bores. Both a 307 and a 455 have the same bore spacing. The big block Olds had the taller deck height but also larger main and rod journals, meaning minimal parts interchange. So the while the tall deck Olds may not be as different as a SBC to a BBC, most if not all Olds enthusiast refer to them as the small block and big block Olds.
FWIW, a SBC to BBC is about 110 lbs difference. And a 351C vs a 400, which also just has a different deck height, has a 30 lb difference. So the Olds falls in the middle of those two.
Pretty sure there wasn’t a Cutlass Supreme Brougham in ’73, but I know what you mean about the loose-pillow-look seating of later ones.
For some reason (too lazy to check the brochure), I’m thinking the Salon was only offered in a four-door in ’73, and the coupe came out in ’74. Is that right or am I stoned?
Another small styling feature I like about the Monte, is the side market lights are down low in the sill moldings, instead of tacked onto/into the body sides higher up. That’s another thing, too. I like about the ’81 Monte Carlo compared to some of the others.
The Salon coupe came in the middle of the 1973 model year.
Supreme Brougham came in ’76 and later cars. The brocade interiors in the earlier Supremes were a notch or two more brougham than the Monte.
I had a ’76 Supreme Brougham. I liked the car a great deal, but could have done with a more conservative or sportier interior.
I never really liked the styling of this generation MC but the focus on making them better road cars without even slightly succumbing to European stylistic standards is to me far more impressive than if they made an outright Mercedes Benz knockoff. Cadillac tried being a German sports sedan for the last 20 years but not one of the art & science sedan designs were as memorable as this generation Monte Carlo, not to mention GMs embarrassing foray into “euro” packages in the 80s that simply swapped the chrome trim for black on their already European inspired efficiently packaged lookalike bloodmobiles. In less than a decade they swapped from making a ever more competent car that had a distinctly American look to mediocre cars that look slightly European. They should have stuck to this formula.
I have an odd memory of the Buick service manager telling my dad that the front wheels of our ’73 Century wagon were engineered to have a little toe-in to improve the directional stability. I wonder if he had confused it with caster.
Amazing how the steering/handling changes when they scrapped the short-steering-knuckle suspension design used from ’64 to ’72 “A” bodies, also used on the first-gen Camaro/Firebird and ’68–74 X-body; in favor of the front suspension design incorporating a taller steering knuckle and stronger control arms originally seen on the “’70 1/2” Camaro/Firebird.
That same basic front suspension design lifted from the 2nd Gen Camaro/Firebird was also used on the ’75–’79 NOVA (X-body), the “A” bodies as said previously, and the “Downsized” “Full-Size” cars starting in ’77. Most suspension pieces directly interchanged–sway bars, coil springs, shocks, bushings, etc. even if the parts may have varied in stiffness/diameter/valving depending on application.
But we’ve had the discussion of how GM’s “All-New” downsized ’77 originated.
To me this was the best MC design of the ’70s. It looked less swollen than Gen 1, not nearly as baroque as the ’75-’77, and not as “shrunken head” as the ’78+. Still not a fan of the long hood visage, but that was how it was back then. For “baroque”, I always loved the Ford Elite and Cougar, although neither could hold a candle to the MC’s handling.
Agreed. I can’t disparage those who like the gen1 MC. but the ’73 is one of the best early colonnades (along with the Grand Prix). And, as evidence, I’d refer to one of Chrysler’s few seventies’ successes, the Cordoba, which was essentially a Chrysler Monte Carlo. People who missed out on the ’73-’74 Monte Carlo got their second chance with the ’75 Cordoba.
Amazing how on some things people have such different tastes.
I remember when this body came out, I used to make jokes about it. To my eyes it was so ugly it wasn’t coyote ugly, I’d have cut my head off not to bee seen in one. I’m sure the 454 described made a difference, but I remember them with the 350 being awfully slow. Slow, with garish styling, huge but only fit for 2 people, but 4 foot long doors weighing who knows how much.
This car is the exception to the rule of Car and Driver giving Detroit a fair shake relative to Road & Track. When Patrick Bedard wrote about the Monte Carlo, he dwelt on what he considered absurd styling and packaging while making only passing note of Chevrolet’s effort to make a car that wasn’t built to be driven on a flat grid where every road is arrow straight and every turn is 90 degrees following a full stop.
When I look at this car, I wonder why Chevrolet didn’t consider its success in the marketplace and build more cars that were competent on mountain roads, but they probably had effective enough market research to know that it was the style that sold the car rather than the suspension geometry.
Beginning with the 2nd gen Camaro, Chevrolet got with the program on handling. The 1971 B bodies were throwbacks, but new designs handled well after that.
The last brand-new car that I drove which had a totally incompetent chassis was a 1996 Buick Century. I also recall almost peeling the tires off a new 1988 DeVille while making a maneuver that wouldn’t have caused the tires on a Taurus to squeal. The much-celebrated 1977 B-bodies needed the optional handling suspension packages to do anything other than wallow on winding roads. It was a long time after the second-generation Monte Carlo that GM would make a decent suspension standard on a car model that wasn’t sold based on its sportiness.
I have mentioned my mother’s purchase of a new ’73 Monte Carlo, a dark blue S model with no vinyl roof. The car was special-ordered, and options were sparse, with only a/c, AM radio, body side molding, bumper guards, underhood and interior courtesy lighting, and a few other odds and ends. So there were no swivel bucket seats, power windows, cruise control, tilt wheel, or 4-barrel carb on the 350 V8. The tires were BF Goodrich GR70-15 radials with the standard steel wheels and full wheelcovers.
At the time, I thought the styling was the cat’s meow, but after nearly 50 years in hindsight, I now agree it was overdone, to put it mildly. The long hood made it difficult to nose into at blind intersections, and the back seat was cramped for such a huge car.
Still, I concur with the prevailing opinion here that the ’73 was the best-looking of the Colonnade generation, with the single round headlights, fine-mesh eggcrate grille, ribbed taillights, and 2.5-mph rear bumper where the license plate was mounted. And it’s interesting that this car and not the Grand Am or Cutlass Salon had the most upgrades in steering and suspension for better handling.
I’ve been driving second generation Monte Carlo’s for almost 40 years. Bought my first one in 1985 (’74) and have had 4 to date. I own a 73 now and have had it for 20 years… No sense in ever selling it because I’ll just buy another! I have taken flack for driving these cars for most of my life… Until now. I cannot go anywhere without someone telling me how much they love the car, their whoever used to have one… For it being so ugly and hated, they sold around a million of them between 73-77. What am I missing? I remember being too young to drive and falling in love with the neighbors 2nd gen Monte Carlos. I remember the Gbody’s coming out and hating the vertical back window. The 2nd gen Monte had the sloping rear window with that nascar look. Now in my 50’s I own a 70, the 73 mentioned and an 84 SS. I love ALL Monte Carlo’s but the 73 is still my favorite. The ride, handling and comfort of the 70 can’t hold a candle to the 73. The Gbody just is not built as well as the older cars. Its the best built, handles better and is just different than what everyone else has. I love chevelles, camaro’s novas, mustangs (have a 68 too) but everyone has these. I love being different and the second gen Monte Carlo will always be my number one.
Me and my ’73
Nice car Scott – the ‘Vette wheels are a nice touch.
Thank you!